Sudipta Ghosh vs Tapas Pal on 6 August, 2025

0
1


The petitioner being the accused in connection with Case No.

CS/6463/06 initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘N.I. Act’) assailed the impugned

order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, 16th Court at Calcutta.

2. By the said impugned order, the Learned Magistrate rejected

the petitioner’s prayer to send the Trade Licence issued in favour of

opposite party – Tapas Pal, Proprietor of M/s. Ashray by Bally

Municipality to the CFSL for examination to ascertain its

genuineness.

3. The background facts of the case of the petitioner are that

the opposite party filed a petition of complaint under Section 200 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’) before the

Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against the present

petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under Section

138 of N.I. Act for issuing a cheque in favour of M/s. Ashray in

discharge of legally enforceable debts and/or liabilities being Cheque

No. 901536 dated 27.03.2006 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs Only), drawn on Union Bank of India, Ezra Street Branch,

Kolkata 700 001. However, upon depositing the said cheque within

2025:CHC-AS:1478

the period of its validity by the opposite party with his banker,

namely, UTI Bank Ltd., Konnagar Branch, Hooghly, 712 235 for

encashment on 09.05.2006, the said cheque was dishonoured on the

ground of “Insufficient Funds” and was returned on 13.05.2006.

Thereafter, all procedural requirements under the Act were duly

followed prior to the filing of the said case when the petitioner failed

to pay the said amount.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here